A recent op-ed that claimed if you installed ad-blocking software, you were in essence stealing food from the mouths of babes.By argueing that keeping your Web-browsing experience unfettered for advertisers was the morally upright and logical thing to do, and that blocking ads was tantamount to stealing from the companies whose content you value most.
My attention is mine, and mine alone. In a world where health, work and even social interactions are more and more frequently commoditized, my attention and where I cast my eyes are some of the last things I can truly say I own completely. Ads, wherever they are presented — on television, direct mail, radio or the Internet — compete for a slice of this attention. For the TV viewer, DVR is a must-have staple. The Do-Not-Call Registry is a federally controlled program that can prohibit telemarketers from interrupting your day. And for the Web, users have ad blockers.
Ads on sites are frequently disruptive or deceptive. They break your concentration while you're reading, often strain for relevance and, in many instances, attempt to take over your viewing experience. For those reasons and more, an ad blocker is essential.
Ads damage engagement. The more ads your site has, the less likely visitors are to engage and share their thoughts in the way of comments, social shares or user reviews. Ad-blocking software is completely essential if you are any kind of Internet power user. Provided you rely on the Internet for more than just the occasional jaunt to Facebook and for rifling through shared recipes and status updates of relatives, you are going to bump into some pretty egregious ads.
Inconvenience doesn't begin to describe the searing frustration of watching a site you love infected with ads that metastasize and undulate. It is a betrayal of the reader's experience to first present them with information they value, establishing a rapport with them, but then in an unexpected moment, try to pitch silky underwear, mortgage refinancing or penis-enlargement pills in a grotesque pop-up or screen takeover.
Altogether, the tricks, the downright lies, and the fake download and warning buttons work to break the narrative of a site, and that hard-won trust is squandered. More than that, in the end, the ad-explosion approach is self-defeating. That "one trick of a tiny belly" ad most assuredly remains unclicked by all but the most novice of browsers.
In my rounds, I'm sometimes required to plunge the deep Web or peek into the darker recesses of the Internet. With browser hijackers, malware and vile cookies of all sorts lurking, it wouldn't dawn on me to turn off my ad blocker on my journey, unless the site was one I really trusted. Like many of you, my computer is a big, huge part of my daily life, and the safety and security of my files is of paramount importance to me.
I've had enough BonziBuddy and Yahoo Toolbar in my life, as I'm sure you have. To quote the infamous Bane meme, "You merely adopted the Internet. I was born in it. Molded by it. I didn't see broadband until I was already a man." An ad blocker is an essential tool critical to my survival and ability to thrive on the Internet, and it's a self-taught adaptation that I won't be losing anytime soon.
Sites make money from ads, and the presence of ads on our sites here at Tom's is a big part of the reason I'm able to pay my bills. Those ads also make it possible for Tom's to support a community team. Without that, our forums would likely be a messy jumble of uncivil exchanges, racial epithets and porn. While that notion may appeal to some people (hah!), the practicality of having a forum with high-value content that is well-moderated and tended to is something most of our users take for granted — just as having a strong editorial team investigating and aggressively reviewing gadgets until their fingers go raw is something the reader has come to expect.
So even though I have ad-blocking software installed, I make it a point to whitelist news and reviews sites I couldn't live without. That's half because I'm comfortable with accepting a small amount of ad distraction in exchange for good content, and half because it is tough to find legitimate news, tech, political and gaming journalism with a wall built between sales and editorial.
In a perfect world, site owners would coordinate with advertisers to ensure two things: First, only the most relevant ads would be shown to users. Second, sites would require those ads to be more than just simple banners, instead providing an unobtrusive offer for the user to engage. Ads should run a contest, host a giveaway or ask for feedback on your latest product. Do something more to engage your audience than shoving flashing graphics in their faces, and they will reward your quality product with their love and loyalty. I get that this is not a perfect world and that the ad market itself is not ideal, but a middle ground can be sensibly struck between user experience and monetization.
The onus should be on the publisher to provide high-quality ads that users want to view. You want 10 percent off when purchasing a new display? How about a bleeding-edge smartphone with limited availability? Or, hey, we do hardware cooling, and we'll ship you a free sample of our thermal paste! If you want to participate in any of that, check out the site before you block it. Whitelist the site if it meets your standards, or you simply won't be seeing it.
No comments:
Post a Comment